|
|
On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval.
lucky for you that you can set up a political party and run on an explicitly anti-NATO platform and see how it goes.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 11 2014 04:29 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval. De facto annexed as it will in Crimea (I predict Russia will not accept the referendum, just keep Crimea under de facto control), well, we get three: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria. I'd say Crimea is already in the list as I doubt anything will dislodge Russia from where it is now. Edit: You're Czech, right? Well, your people elected the politicians who joined, didn't they. It's called a representative democracy for a reason. But even then, membership of NATO is vastly more popular than the alternatives. Here's a study from 2000: Agree: 49 neither agree nor disagree: 19 disagree: 26 don’t know: 6 So, 26 percent of your people disagreed with membership in NATO, well, there were nearly twice as many who agreed. The fact that you don't agree, doesn't mean that `the people' don't agree. Source
I hope you know that South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't parts of Russia, right?
Same as Transnistria?
|
On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval.
How exactly is joining NATO the equivalent of what Russia is trying to do in the Crimea and has done in other former Soviet states? Christ, I'm sure that the American government sometimes wishes that it had that kind of control over NATO members.
|
On March 11 2014 04:17 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. He did say stop and not prevent. Obviously preventing genocide would be impossible to achieve.
Especially in 2008 they stopped genocide that was not happening. It is important to stop genocides that are not happening, which Russia is doing currently, no ? /sarcasm
EDIT: 1998 of course.
|
On March 11 2014 04:25 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:19 Liman wrote:On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. Lets just say that in 1999 NATO was preventing genocide just as Russia is now protecting Crimea from fascists. Imaginary. I think you might have to reveal a little bit of your ancestry here because your objectivity seems a little questionable at best. Comparing the Kosovo war to what is ongoing in crimeria seems a little uhhh off...
Serbia(Ukraine) had an autonomous province of Kosovo(Crimea) which had an majority of Albanians(Russians) that didnt want to be part of Serbia(Ukraine) which were backed by NATO(Russia). Albanians(Russians) instaged conflict with the Serbs(Ukraines/Tatars) in Kosovo( Crimea) and etc. The rest what happened in Kosovo will happen in the future in Crimea
Yep its not the same in any way or form...
|
On March 11 2014 04:30 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Also this isn't just one country annexing some other country. This is the guy who called the fall of the soviet union the "biggest tragedy of the 20th century" who tries to invade a country which has suffered millions of deaths during the Holodomor.
Just imagine Germany being lead by someone who would call the fall of the third Reich 'the greatest tragedy of the 20th century' and then proceeds annexing a part of Poland. Would we be discussing the pro's and cons of that? Why do people have such problem with calling fall of Soviet Union a tragedy (the "biggest" is clearly nonsense) ? I am not saying that Baltics should have been kept in Soviet Union. And possibly others. But in general dissolution of Soviet Union was a great tragedy that caused untold suffering in economic collapse that followed. I always thought that tragedies are measured by suffering they cause, but apparently if that happens to "them" it is all ok. I am sure that Putin might ave had slightly different reason to call it that, but the phrase itself is not without merit.
That's absolute nonsense, people suffered IN the soviet union. The economy collapsed IN the soviet union. The fact that many countries finally received their freedom, and their people were no longer oppressed, is not in any way a tragedy.
|
On March 11 2014 04:34 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:29 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval. De facto annexed as it will in Crimea (I predict Russia will not accept the referendum, just keep Crimea under de facto control), well, we get three: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria. I'd say Crimea is already in the list as I doubt anything will dislodge Russia from where it is now. Edit: You're Czech, right? Well, your people elected the politicians who joined, didn't they. It's called a representative democracy for a reason. But even then, membership of NATO is vastly more popular than the alternatives. Here's a study from 2000: Agree: 49 neither agree nor disagree: 19 disagree: 26 don’t know: 6 So, 26 percent of your people disagreed with membership in NATO, well, there were nearly twice as many who agreed. The fact that you don't agree, doesn't mean that `the people' don't agree. Source I hope you know that South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't parts of Russia, right? Same as Transnistria?
Don't delude yourself. They are governed by people appointed by the Kremlin, with the same laws as the Russian Federation and linked to the same economic domain.
|
On March 11 2014 04:34 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:17 radiatoren wrote:On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. He did say stop and not prevent. Obviously preventing genocide would be impossible to achieve. Especially in 2008 they stopped genocide that was not happening. It is important to stop genocides that are not happening, which Russia is doing currently, no ? /sarcasm EDIT: 1998 of course.
huh?
|
This is new, Russian posturing in a non-NATO country:
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 11 2014 04:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:34 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:29 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval. De facto annexed as it will in Crimea (I predict Russia will not accept the referendum, just keep Crimea under de facto control), well, we get three: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria. I'd say Crimea is already in the list as I doubt anything will dislodge Russia from where it is now. Edit: You're Czech, right? Well, your people elected the politicians who joined, didn't they. It's called a representative democracy for a reason. But even then, membership of NATO is vastly more popular than the alternatives. Here's a study from 2000: Agree: 49 neither agree nor disagree: 19 disagree: 26 don’t know: 6 So, 26 percent of your people disagreed with membership in NATO, well, there were nearly twice as many who agreed. The fact that you don't agree, doesn't mean that `the people' don't agree. Source I hope you know that South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't parts of Russia, right? Same as Transnistria? Don't delude yourself. They are governed by people appointed by the Kremlin, with the same laws as the Russian Federation and linked to the same economic domain.
I guess, you can call it as zones of influence then.
Every big country had them in the past, have now and will have in future.
But calling them as parts of Russia - don't delude yourself.
|
On March 11 2014 04:34 SkelA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:25 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2014 04:19 Liman wrote:On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. Lets just say that in 1999 NATO was preventing genocide just as Russia is now protecting Crimea from fascists. Imaginary. I think you might have to reveal a little bit of your ancestry here because your objectivity seems a little questionable at best. Comparing the Kosovo war to what is ongoing in crimeria seems a little uhhh off... Serbia(Ukraine) had an autonomous province of Kosovo(Crimea) which had an majority of Albanians(Russians) that didnt want to be part of Serbia(Ukraine) which were backed by NATO(Russia). Albanians(Russians) instaged conflict with the Serbs(Ukraines/Tatars) in Kosovo( Crimea) and etc. The rest what happened in Kosovo will happen in the future in Crimea Yep its not the same in any way or form...
Kosovo was no longer an autonomous Republic. Its status was stripped by Milosevic in 89. The local Serbian military units in Kosovo in 98 were not staffed with Albanians, they were staffed with Serbs, unlike Crimea where the local military units are 80% or more made up of Russian-Ukrainians. And there are no Crimean Liberation Army rebels attacking Ukrainian Army installations that lead to reprisals by Ukrainian Army troops against Russian villages. Finally, Ukraine isnt run by a war criminal who has launched wars against almost all of his neighbors at one point or another or built the first concentration camps in Europe since World War 2.
But yes, other than all the basic facts Kosovo is a lot like Crimea.
|
On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media.
This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy.
|
On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy.
Maybe Russia should apply to join NATO, problem solved.
|
On March 11 2014 04:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Maybe Russia should apply to join NATO, problem solved.
That's like letting a girl join G.R.O.S.S.
|
On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy.
Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries.
|
On March 11 2014 04:48 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:45 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Maybe Russia should apply to join NATO, problem solved. That's like letting a girl join G.R.O.S.S.
The funny thing is, Russia has become an observer country in NATO. There was a certain path of alignment already, but that broke down soon after Putin got to power and D. Rogozin was appointed as the ambassador to NATO (I'm sure ambassador isn't the correct translation).
|
On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries.
Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them.
Probably you can count Soviet-Finnish war as kind of aggression even if Finns were reasons for it and Poles will whine about 4th divide of their country as well. But it's probably as minor as Crimea now.
|
On March 11 2014 04:29 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval. De facto annexed as it will in Crimea (I predict Russia will not accept the referendum, just keep Crimea under de facto control), well, we get three: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria. I'd say Crimea is already in the list as I doubt anything will dislodge Russia from where it is now. Edit: You're Czech, right? Well, your people elected the politicians who joined, didn't they. It's called a representative democracy for a reason. But even then, membership of NATO is vastly more popular than the alternatives. Here's a study from 2000: Agree: 49 neither agree nor disagree: 19 disagree: 26 don’t know: 6 So, 26 percent of your people disagreed with membership in NATO, well, there were nearly twice as many who agreed. The fact that you don't agree, doesn't mean that `the people' don't agree. Source
None of those were countries. But let's ignore that, before Crimea neither of those territories was in control of the country they "belonged" to. I would not call Transnistria annexed by Russia, but does not change my argument. So they annexed realistically independent territories with most likely approval of the populations in question, especially in a war that the other side had as much fault in starting. How evil (on international level). My point is that expansion of NATO was not based on any Russian aggressive actions, just in many cases on simple wish of the US to gain geopolitical power and historical fear of USSR.
The support for NATO increased after we joined, because the world did not end and a lot of money was spend on propaganda (sorry, PR). And nobody ever voted for the politicians based on the possibility of joining NATO. There was no public discussion, it was "quietly" done so as to avoid public taking too much interest. Also just to note that study points out that undecideds are more likely to be against it. Anyway, the point was, no public discussion, suspicious actions by politicians rushing the act as much as possible, at best 50% support for joining NATO do not seem like completely kosher image of voluntary, popularly approved joining.
I am not saying we were annexed, but there was a lot of pressures/incentives from the US on our politicians to join.
|
On March 11 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:26 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization. How many countries has Russia recently annexed ? Also for example we entered NATO even though popular will was far from clear, decided purely by politicians without the public approval. How exactly is joining NATO the equivalent of what Russia is trying to do in the Crimea and has done in other former Soviet states? Christ, I'm sure that the American government sometimes wishes that it had that kind of control over NATO members.
I am not saying there is equivalence. That was just a side note to point out that our joining was not the enthusiastic welcoming of freedom that it is often portrayed as. Most likely few bribes were involved to keep the whole thing quiet until it is done. But really nobody cared too much to join NATO and nobody really cares about being part of it. It is just another stupid nonsense that those in power do and Czechs are apathetic towards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
